Michael Moore's messages to the crestfallen - Printable Version
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Michael Moore's messages to the crestfallen (/showthread.php?tid=4306)
+- PunBB (https://punbb.in)
+-- Forum: General Discussion - Hipbase.com (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Non Tragically Hip Discussion (https://punbb.in/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Michael Moore's messages to the crestfallen (/showthread.php?tid=4306)
- VioletlightHeron - 11-09-2004
When it comes to political commentary and news, the mainstream media is decidedly left of center, for various reasons. First, network news and the big newspapers rely heavily on inside sources to get a jump on the competition and the inside sources are generally speaking bureacratic operators, politically connected lobbyists and congressional aides(and here I'm speaking about legislative aides from both the left and right), seeking to put favorable spin on an issue. But that overlooks the fact that these inside sources are part of "official Washington" and their motivations for providing information to the media is based on their desire to keep their job and keep the programs they have control over funded. Simply put, "official Washington" is going to be liberal in belief because they have a strong desire to see the federal government dominate and control political opinion and spending because a strong federal government, with its myriad bureacracies and rules needs alot of people to keep it operating. They have an inherent interest in expanding and maintaining the role of federal government in society. They believe problems and concerns like health care, the enviroment, etc can only be solved by federal government and not by the states, industry or the people themselves. Therefore, with the mainstream media being dependent on the lobbyists, political operatives, etc for inside information and breaking news, they are prone to dissemenating liberal slant in their media and influencing public opinion. Why do you think Fox News is so successful? Because some of the American public has simply gotten sick and tired of hearing the liberal bias in the other networks and voted with their remote. Another great example of the bias in media is the 1992 campaign. With Clinton in hot water over Genifer Flowers and his other alledged promiscuities with women, why did the media accuse Bush the 41st of having an affair with an aide and have nothing but rumor and innenudo to back it up? They didn't want to be fair or balanced, they wanted to distract the American people from Clinton's dalliances and make it appear that Republicans were hypocritically ignoring Bush's supposed infidelities when there was no documented proof of it ever happening, unlike in Clinton's case.
- The Horrible Esthete - 11-09-2004
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:The Horrible Esthete Wrote:skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Instead of focusing on ideology, character, intelligence, and so on, perhaps debate could actually focus on fact and argument, i.e. on the issues themselves?
I would answer by saying that what's chiefly responsible for the reluctance to focus on the facts of the issues themselves is clearly outlined in Gewal's editorial....
My suggestion is that instead of ideologically based finger-pointing, public debate should get back to fact and argument.
But if you'd rather focus on who you think is the root cause of the problem, go ahead. But I don't think that'll actually put any focus on issues themselves....
I'd rather we focused on the issues, too, Skip, but we've tried, haven't we? Good points are continually being made, yet progress is not. I wouldn't even touch the recent 'homosexual' argument, because the only likey result is not the dispelling of false perception, or the breeding of more 'sophisticated' attitudes - instead what will inevitably result is people becoming defensive and taking offense, which is only natural, because everyone who bothers to hold an opinion obviously thinks that it is 'right'. The views that one holds on some of these base issues are so fundamental, so woven into individual moral and ethical principle, that they certainly aren't going to just arbitrarily change, and they will likely not change even if they are suject to the most poignant and logical criticism.
This is the human condition.
- thipfan73 - 11-09-2004
I have to say something about intelligence and political party.
If you're a democrat you can be stupid. If you're a republican, you can be stupid. There is no way you can tell me everyone from one party is stupid or intelligent. Even if the south is notoriously republican and stereotypically stupid, that doesn't mean everyone in the south is stupid! I know people from the south who are VERY INTELLIGENT!
I know when I vote I for which issues that are the same as mine. I'm a democrat and I don't just vote for someone who is a democrat. My family does that. They vote for anyone who is a democrat and a woman. To me, even if I totally LOVE my family, I think that is STUPID!
If Bush stands for what someone believed in, such as pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc, then you voted for him!
It's discrimination when you generalize about one group of people based on a few people. Like not all fat people are lazy and eat too much, and not all feminists are lesbians and all of those old stereotypes.
It's 2004 people, let's stop thinking like my grandparents who were born in 1918 and 1922.
- prz - 11-09-2004
For those who still dont want to admit the impressive win for Bush;
"He was the first incumbent since 1964 to win reelection while simultaneously expanding his party's representation in both houses of Congress."
Those victories to some degrees have to be credited to Bush. He has helped his party in a big way. Even look back to 2002 where he had the same effect. The dems should of seen it then.
As for how smart one voter in one party is versus the other, that makes no sense to me. People are allowed to vote no matter who they are. It doesnt matter if they have a PHD, a BA, a diploma or nothing at all. They have a right to choose who they want to lead them.
- The Horrible Esthete - 11-09-2004
And here, county by county is who we chose. I didn't know 'intelligence' knew such precise geographical bounds....
- thipfan73 - 11-09-2004
The Horrible Esthete Wrote:And here, county by county is who we chose. I didn't know 'intelligence' knew such precise geographical bounds....
Yes and there it is, my county of residence, in red, right below the most northeastern blue county in NY which is where I grew up! My town of residence voted for Bush 2:1. I live in a very conservative and religious town. That didn't surprise me at all.
- Tthip - 11-09-2004
![[Image: 1106ecvote.jpg]](http://www.buffalonews.com/graphics/2004/11/06/actualsize/1106ecvote.jpg)
OK, but on a smaller scale, look at Buffalo (Erie County) - the most populous places voted for Kerry, and the outskirts for Bush.
Bush has a huge red area compared to Kerry's little Blue area.
But Kerry heavily defeated Bush here.
Kerry: 230, 986 votes
Bush: 171,061 votes
- The Horrible Esthete - 11-09-2004
Tthip Wrote:OK, but on a smaller scale, look at Buffalo (Erie County) - the most populous places voted for Kerry, and the outskirts for Bush.
Bush has a huge red area compared to Kerry's little Blue area.
But Kerry heavily defeated Bush here.
Kerry: 230, 986 votes
Bush: 171,061 votes
Exactly. These illustrations completely dispell any inane notion that voting habits and intelligence are even remotely liked, unless you wish to posit that ‘intelligence’ is confined to the corporation limits of select cities nationwide....
- stanslow12 - 11-09-2004
Interesting fact about both maps, Kerry won those sections of the country with higher population density. He carried states with large cities, the larger those cities the more impact they have on the election, like Detroit on Michigan, etc. In states without large cities, Kerry still won the areas with high population density, they just weren't large enough to make an impact.
Not an argument, just an observation.
As for the intelligence stats, I don't believe it was intelligence of registered voters, what then would they look like, either way, it is pretty ridiculous.
- tigerthelion - 11-09-2004
thipfan73 Wrote:It's discrimination when you generalize about one group of people based on a few people. Like not all fat people are lazy and eat too much, and not all feminists are lesbians and all of those old stereotypes.
It's 2004 people, let's stop thinking like my grandparents who were born in 1918 and 1922.
...And not all men are pigs..
- thipfan73 - 11-09-2004
tigerthelion Wrote:thipfan73 Wrote:It's discrimination when you generalize about one group of people based on a few people. Like not all fat people are lazy and eat too much, and not all feminists are lesbians and all of those old stereotypes.
It's 2004 people, let's stop thinking like my grandparents who were born in 1918 and 1922.
...And not all men are pigs..
yes and all men are not pigs! I totally agree with that one!
- direwolf74 - 11-10-2004
Since we're still talking about the election, I thought I'd inject a little humor into the discussion. Gotta love The Onion!
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4045">http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4045</a><!-- m -->
- Tthip - 11-10-2004
United States of Canada
- tragicallymike - 11-10-2004
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/">http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/</a><!-- m -->
interesting diagrams based on population
- The Horrible Esthete - 11-17-2004
Just an editorial regarding the fervor over the influence of 'religious right' in the election:
The making of the Christian-jihadist myth
By Kathleen Parker
Following days of spin and commentary, we can confidently declare a new urban legend: George W. Bush was elected by right-wing, science-hating, vengeful Christian zealots - "revved up by rectitude," as one pundit put it - and America is embarked on a hatchet-wielding jihad against heathens, pagans and infidels.
Colorful. But then so is pollution in certain lights. It's also wrong and awfully ignorant coming from the side of the political spectrum that considers itself the more intelligent segment of the American population. Not only did the right wing not elect Bush - only slightly more evangelical Christians (5 percent) voted for Bush this time around than in 2000 - but Bush himself is far to the left of the so-called "moral right."
As former secretary of education William J. Bennett pointed out Monday in a speech at the Heritage Foundation, Bush's election was a slightly-right-of-center mandate, rather than a far-right one. Of nearly 60 million votes for Bush, some 20 million came from evangelical Christians. The other 40 million votes came from others, including increased numbers of Jews, Catholics, blacks and Latinos.
Yet all the chatter in recent days is about those weird Christians and their bizarre "agenda." Always preaching about duty to family, making a fuss about pornography and promiscuity, carrying on about homosexual marriage. What's wrong with those people, anyway?
The media seem suddenly, if belatedly, obsessed, approaching the evangelical Christian voting block as anthropologist Margaret Mead did the Samoans. Chris Matthews suggested on "Hardball" that reporters should be sent out to cover the red states as one might a foreign country. You can imagine the scramble. Among least coveted assignments, embedding with Real Americans would be second only to spending August in Crawford, Texas.
Because I live in South Carolina, I've gotten a few calls myself from television and radio producers seeking insight. I feel like Jane Goodall being summoned from the hinterlands to report on the behavioral habits of the indigenous wildlife.
"Fascinating," I picture them saying as they stroke their chins. "They even go to church on Wednesdays, too? Whatever for?!" Why, for the beheadings, of course. OK, I'm kidding. It's the snakes.
Just as Samoan women are alleged to have lied to Mead about their freewheeling, premarital sex romps, red staters may be sorely tempted to offer exaggerated tales to curious intellectuals. They're so cute when they're perplexed. Alas, their own interpretations are sufficiently exaggerated without my help, as this typical reader e-mail suggests:
"We will just have to adjust to a new world that was created in six days, where women were created from a man's rib and where global warming does not exist according to science advisor Rush Limbaugh. Scientists like myself will just have to be wary of stakes with brush piled underneath, and suppress any sign of intellect while mumbling something about being saved and born again."
The urban myth has taken hold even among scientific minds, it seems. Yet objectively, the myth is holier than Peter's net. Bush, though he identifies himself as an evangelical Christian, isn't nearly as conservative as those on the far right might wish him to be, nor are Christian evangelicals all knuckle-dragging throwbacks. Last time I checked, not a single one had ordered the murder of an infidel. But you knew that.
Despite our near-pathological need to label and categorize, the United States isn't really a far-left and a far-right country, bright red and bright blue. While such demographic labels are convenient for political debate - and indispensable to column writing - the fact is that most Americans dwell in that vast lavender (purple?) area in between.
In that middle, people are complex and hold a variety of views, some liberal, some conservative, depending on the issue. Most don't cleave to an either-or position on even the hot-button issues. Many Americans still support a woman's right to abortion, for instance, but think reasonable limits can be set without condemning women to life terms in the kitchen.
The debate, meanwhile, about whether "moral values" was the compelling force behind Bush's victory seems slightly off point. Exit polls showing "moral values" as the most important issue for voters (22 percent cited it) were refuted subsequently by other polls, leading some to insist that the election wasn't about values after all.
What they mean, probably correctly, is that the election wasn't only about far-right concerns such as same-sex marriage, abortion and stem cell research. But of course it was about moral values - what's right and what's wrong, from war to national character - and the vote took us right of center.
As for Bush's alleged "jihad," only true jihadists have reason to protest. As Christopher Hitchens wrote, Bush fights religious fanaticism while the left apologizes for it. Amen to that.